Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.









* * *You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


* *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?









Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.

It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

* * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
* * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
* * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
* * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
* * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
* * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
* * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
* * * results are radically different.

* * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
* * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
* * * humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
* * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
* * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
* * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
* * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
* * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
* * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
* * * significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar.


Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.

*They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.











Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted..


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.


So you appear to believe for some strange reason.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 12:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* * * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.

* You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.









If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.









* * Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another.. *We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?







* * *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
believe it.


I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
sufficient information.


That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?


Why, yes, actually.


  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 05:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.









You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?









Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.

It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
results are radically different.

If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar.


Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.

They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.











Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.


So you appear to believe


You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 05:05 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.

You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.









Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 08:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.


* * * You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


* * You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.


It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.


* * * *But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
* * * *meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
* * * *demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
* * * *the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
* * * *conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
* * * *amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
* * * *plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
* * * *results are radically different.


* * * *If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
* * * *stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
* * * *humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
* * * *production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
* * * *grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
* * * *useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
* * * *almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
* * * *grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
* * * *global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
* * * *significant net gain.


Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar.


Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.


* They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.


Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.


So you appear to believe


You did, of course. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. *You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 04-03-2012, 08:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* * * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does..
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


* *You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.









If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


* * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.
  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 03:39 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.


You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.


It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.


But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
results are radically different.


If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
significant net gain.


Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar.


Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.


It is false. The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you
****ing liar.


They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.


We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat ****.


Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.


So you appear to believe


You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


It is the truth.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 03:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.



If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 4:39*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:









On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George * *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.


* * * *You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


* * *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.


It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.


* * * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
* * * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
* * * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
* * * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
* * * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
* * * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
* * * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
* * * * results are radically different.


* * * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
* * * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
* * * * humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
* * * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
* * * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
* * * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
* * * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
* * * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
* * * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
* * * * significant net gain.


Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar.


Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
to think that that is false.


It is false. *The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you
****ing liar.


It's not false.

* *They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
still be required in order to produce the food.


We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat ****.


Actually, the original context was that we were talking about CDs. I
never said anything about the environmental effects.









Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.


So you appear to believe


You did, of course. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. *You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.


Much joy may this belief bring you.


It is the truth.


Where did I concede that I don't know and don't want to know?
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:27 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 4:40*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:









On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George * *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* * * * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


* * You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights, Ball.











If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


* * * Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:









On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.



If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:55 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 5:48*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:


On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George * *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George * * *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* * * * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * * * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * * * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


* * *You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.


So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?











If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


* * * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:


On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.


So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?











If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:10 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 6:08*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:


On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George * * *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George * * * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* * * * * * Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * * * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * * * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:21 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:


On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George wrote:
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George wrote:
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
for it you are unable to provide any.


****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
paddy?


I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.


But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.


I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
sense" in this area.


That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
know.


I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
find out.


You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
about knowing the answer, period.


False.


Nope - true.


You don't care to know *which*
"vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.


You're a fool.


Concession noted and accepted.


You appear to have lost touch with reality.


Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.


I see.


We all see it.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.


So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?


If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea.


I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.


So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?


Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
"veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.


It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.


It does.


Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.


Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
rice and grass-fed beef.


Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,


How many? Give me a range.


According to diderot, many thousands.


So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?


versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison.


No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
the comparison.


You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
products cause many.


"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.


All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


And how exactly do I know that?


Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.


It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 01:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017